Genomic and healthcare dynamics of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission

  1. Jamie M Ellingford  Is a corresponding author
  2. Ryan George
  3. John H McDermott
  4. Shazaad Ahmad
  5. Jonathan J Edgerley
  6. David Gokhale
  7. William G Newman
  8. Stephen Ball
  9. Nicholas Machin
  10. Graeme CM Black  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Manchester, United Kingdom
  2. Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
  3. Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, United Kingdom

Abstract

Understanding the effectiveness of infection control methods in reducing and preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in healthcare settings is of high importance. We sequenced SARS-CoV-2 genomes for patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) across multiple geographically distinct UK hospitals, obtaining 173 high-quality SARS-CoV-2 genomes. We integrated patient movement and staff location data into the analysis of viral genome data to understand spatial and temporal dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We identified eight patient contact clusters (PCC) with significantly increased similarity in genomic variants compared to non-clustered samples. Incorporation of HCW location further increased the number of individuals within PCCs and identified additional links in SARS-CoV-2 transmission pathways. Patients within PCCs carried viruses more genetically identical to HCWs in the same ward location. SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing integrated with patient and HCW movement data increases identification of outbreak clusters. This dynamic approach can support infection control management strategies within the healthcare setting.

Data availability

All genome sequencing datasets have been shared with COG-UK.

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jamie M Ellingford

    Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    jamie.ellingford@manchester.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1137-9768
  2. Ryan George

    Department of Infection Prevention & Control, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. John H McDermott

    Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Shazaad Ahmad

    Department of Virology, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jonathan J Edgerley

    Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. David Gokhale

    Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. William G Newman

    School of Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Stephen Ball

    Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology & Gastroenterology, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Nicholas Machin

    Department of Clinical Endocrinology, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Graeme CM Black

    Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    graeme.black@manchester.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

Health Education England

  • Jamie M Ellingford

Manchester Biomedical Research Centre

  • William G Newman

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Niel Hens, Hasselt University & University of Antwerp, Belgium

Ethics

Human subjects: The study was conducted to investigate hospital outbreak investigation/surveillance; individual patient consent or ethical approvals were not required. The study protocol was approved by the Manchester Biomedical Research Centre COVID-19 rapid response group and the Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust Executive Committee. All samples and data collected were part of routine care or hospital operational policy. No patient-identifiable/individual identifiable data are presented.

Version history

  1. Received: December 4, 2020
  2. Accepted: March 16, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 17, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 29, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Ellingford et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,623
    views
  • 204
    downloads
  • 35
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Jamie M Ellingford
  2. Ryan George
  3. John H McDermott
  4. Shazaad Ahmad
  5. Jonathan J Edgerley
  6. David Gokhale
  7. William G Newman
  8. Stephen Ball
  9. Nicholas Machin
  10. Graeme CM Black
(2021)
Genomic and healthcare dynamics of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission
eLife 10:e65453.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65453

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.65453

Further reading

    1. Medicine
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    3. Epidemiology and Global Health
    4. Immunology and Inflammation
    Edited by Jos WM van der Meer et al.
    Collection

    eLife has published articles on a wide range of infectious diseases, including COVID-19, influenza, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, malaria and typhoid fever.

    1. Evolutionary Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Brian PH Metzger, Yeonwoo Park ... Joseph W Thornton
    Research Article

    A protein’s genetic architecture – the set of causal rules by which its sequence produces its functions – also determines its possible evolutionary trajectories. Prior research has proposed that the genetic architecture of proteins is very complex, with pervasive epistatic interactions that constrain evolution and make function difficult to predict from sequence. Most of this work has analyzed only the direct paths between two proteins of interest – excluding the vast majority of possible genotypes and evolutionary trajectories – and has considered only a single protein function, leaving unaddressed the genetic architecture of functional specificity and its impact on the evolution of new functions. Here, we develop a new method based on ordinal logistic regression to directly characterize the global genetic determinants of multiple protein functions from 20-state combinatorial deep mutational scanning (DMS) experiments. We use it to dissect the genetic architecture and evolution of a transcription factor’s specificity for DNA, using data from a combinatorial DMS of an ancient steroid hormone receptor’s capacity to activate transcription from two biologically relevant DNA elements. We show that the genetic architecture of DNA recognition consists of a dense set of main and pairwise effects that involve virtually every possible amino acid state in the protein-DNA interface, but higher-order epistasis plays only a tiny role. Pairwise interactions enlarge the set of functional sequences and are the primary determinants of specificity for different DNA elements. They also massively expand the number of opportunities for single-residue mutations to switch specificity from one DNA target to another. By bringing variants with different functions close together in sequence space, pairwise epistasis therefore facilitates rather than constrains the evolution of new functions.